333
federal policy. It forms the basis for much of the statutory language and administrative structure surrounding the Joint Training Partnership Act (JTPA). Robert Gutman, the Senate majority staff member who took the leading role in drafting JTPA, was also involved in the drafting of YEDPA and in discussions of the Carter youth initiative, in which the same issues surfaced. A wide ränge of people, from Taggart to the Brandeis staff to the Vice President's Task Force staff to congressional staff, Claim credit for influencing the content of JTPA. This consensus is an important indication that YEDPA and its attendant policy activities created an occasion for rethinking the legislative and administrative structure surrounding federal youth employment programs. This consensus has been described in a number of ways in a variety of documents (Taggart, 1981; Hahn and Lerman, 1983; National Council on Employment Policy, 1983, n.d.), but it includes at least the following basic elements:
• Focus on High-Risk Youths. Limited federal resources, the indeterminacy of aggregate unemployment statistics for youths, and the seriousness of the Problems faced by economically disadvantaged high school dropouts all argue for a strategy more highly focused on what Taggart calls "the leftovers"—young people excluded from conventional routes to education and employment.
" Deemphasize Income Maintenance, Emphasize Employment. Employment programs should have employment objectives, income maintenance programs, and income maintenance objectives. Training stipends and wage subsidies should be set to encourage unsubsidized employment and reward Performance, rather than to provide income.
• Deemphasize Work Experience, Emphasize Basic Skills and Job Training. Work experience should no longer be used äs the catch-all solution for the unemployed. It seldom leads to longer-term employment unless it is linked in some systematic way to education and training.
• Use Individualized and Sequenced Programs. Many of the failures of employment and training programs stem from mismatches between the competencies of the trainees and the content of the programs. Programs should be designed to provide basic education, training, and Job entry in a sequence and combination that matches the individual's requirements, with intermediate benchmarks to gauge Performance along the way.
• Require Performance Standards for both Individuais and Programs. Employment is the expected outcome of employment programs, therefore people in the employment and training System should be evaluated and rewarded on the basis of their performance in securing long-term, unsubsidized employment. Intermediate benchmarks are important, but employment outcomes are essential.
• Reward Performers. The absence of positive rewards for both individuals and program operators leads to a focus on the lowest common denominator of participants. Programs should select from the most disadavantaged and reward those who succeed in meeting expectations.
• Use Mainstream Institutions. The Isolation of education and training for the disadvantaged from mainstream institutions, especially employers, compounds problems of access. Heavier reliance on apprenticeships and employer-based training decreases barriers to entry.f so was less understandable to people with a strong interest in research and evaluation